Recommended Posts

In time my opinion may change once we know more but right now people like Harris and Warren are establishment candidates. Forgive me if I'm wary of the establishment and people who've already been in our government. These are sanitized candidates proposing nothing out of the ordinary. People who want to break out of the mold like Sanders and even Yang are not given attention (notice how Yang is not mentioned on CNN or MSNBC and both networks automatically assume Kamela is the nominee despite it being a 20 or so man "Royal Rumble" atm)

Yea, what we really need these days is a disruptor with little to no practical experience in adult governance.

Andrew Yang isn't mentioned for the same reason Mayor Pete isn't mentioned: Nobody knows who he is and he doesn't have the credentials of a serious candidate for President. So I wikipedia'd him and found out that his "anti-establishment" credentials include high school at Exeter Academy, arguably the most elite high school in the country, then ivy league Brown for undergrad, then ivy league Columbia Law School, then Davis Polk, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world, then whatever he does now (bounces around startups, it appears). Those certainly appear to be establishment credentials as I understand the term.

Meantime, Liz Warren literally invented a new federal agencythat is the bane of the banking industry. But yea, she's never proposed anything new. She's also been a Senator for 1 term, Bernie's been in Congress for nearly 30 years.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yea, what we really need these days is a disruptor with little to no practical experience in adult governance.

#MAGA

Last I checked no one said he should be the nominee. I think all that some of us are saying is that he looks to addressing a real issue that most other candidates aren't. Whether their solution would be UBI or something else, automation of jobs on a grand scale hasn't seemed to gained traction at all. Sometimes certain nominees that aren't meant to be leaders, can still have good ideas that will eventually become mainstream. Look at Bernie in 2016 and what difference it made for the 2020 field.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Last I checked no one said he should be the nominee. I think all that some of us are saying is that he looks to addressing a real issue that most other candidates aren't. Whether their solution would be UBI or something else, automation of jobs on a grand scale hasn't seemed to gained traction at all. Sometimes certain nominees that aren't meant to be leaders, can still have good ideas that will eventually become mainstream. Look at Bernie in 2016 and what difference it made for the 2020 field.

I was mostly taking issue with ixcuincle stating that (1) Warren is a "sanitized candidates proposing nothing out of the ordinary" when she probably has the most interesting policy proposals that could actually work and, again, INVENTED a ****ing significant federal agency, and (2) Sanders (30 years in Congress) and Yang (elite schools then elite law firm) are not establishment, but Warren, who has done more in the past 10 years to **** up the establishment than any Democrat running, is.

I'm not even a huge Warren fan, but those are just straight up facts.

1

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I was mostly taking issue with ixcuincle stating that (1) Warren is a "sanitized candidates proposing nothing out of the ordinary" when she probably has the most interesting policy proposals that could actually work and, again, INVENTED a ****ing significant federal agency, and (2) Sanders (30 years in Congress) and Yang (elite schools then elite law firm) are not establishment, but Warren, who has done more in the past 10 years to **** up the establishment than any Democrat running, is.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've been reading heavily about Andrew Yang, who is running for president. He wrote a book called "The War on Normal People" where he makes a claim (certainly believable) that AI is going to take your manufacturing, food service, and trucking jobs. Most of the book is focused on how "normal people" ie those without a college education will be affected by the rise of AI (and it's happening RIGHT now with truckers being laid off, self-driving cars coming out, et cetera).

However, there is a chapter in the book that describes how AI will be used to take over routine copy-pasting-searching tasks in white-collar industry. In the book, he singles out radiology as a medical field where AI will increasingly replace doctors, as they can detect things a human eye cannot readily see. AI can also be used in the legal field and do what a lot of legal assistants already do now.

The last sentence is what struck me. We know AI is probably going to take "normal" jobs of the "normal" American, but AI is getting smarter and smarter. I saw another article about how AI is now modeled after deep learning. It means the programmers basically gave the computer free reign on how to solve the issue. They're not limited anymore.

AI will only get smarter and smarter (Moore's law) as time progresses. AI has already impacted the jobs of working Americans in 2019. It is not inconceivable to think that as AI continues to get better and better, human jobs will be more at risk as companies decide a robot can do what a human does more efficiently and with less chance of error.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In the book, he singles out radiology as a medical field where AI will increasingly replace doctors, as they can detect things a human eye cannot readily see.

I singled out this sentence because it is close to my field (x-raying aircraft and aircraft parts) but I think you can expand this to many other fields.

I think some people are getting a little carried away with the expectations of what AI will be able to do in the near future. I saw an example of a computer reading an xray a couple years ago. It gave way too many false positives. Each indication had to be verified by a human because of the interpretation that goes into it. It also missed other known defects. (Time to ramble: When experimenting with things like AI radiography, you use a test subject with known discrepancies, both actual defects and purposeful distractors. For example, you would have an actual crack, a piece of scotch tape, and a hair stuck in the paint. A human can use our thinking skills to determine which is which. A computer sees a change in density that shouldn't be there and flags it. The human can tell by shape, direction, location, and plain experience to tell if you need to spend a week tearing an aircraft apart to look at it. A computer can't. That's why we call it NON-Destructive Inspection. To prevent the needless tearing down of parts.) Even the automated ultrasonic or eddy current inspections that get used on things like roller coaster tracks still get verified by a human. And they are far more basic than reading a radiograph.

It also reminds me of some of the other "AI" troubleshooting computer systems that have gotten added to aircraft. Talk to some people that work on F-18 or F-35 systems. You end up spending more time troubleshooting their troubleshooting systems. I actually started writing a long bit about my experience with the "AI" they put on the H-60 but then realized I don't know how much of that should be posted in an open forum and I've had a few drinks so not a decision to make right now.

That was a whole lot of words to say this, AI isn't taking the job of a radiologist any time soon. Too many other factors go into reading an image.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I singled out this sentence because it is close to my field (x-raying aircraft and aircraft parts) but I think you can expand this to many other fields.

I think some people are getting a little carried away with the expectations of what AI will be able to do in the near future. I saw an example of a computer reading an xray a couple years ago. It gave way too many false positives. Each indication had to be verified by a human because of the interpretation that goes into it. It also missed other known defects. (Time to ramble: When experimenting with things like AI radiography, you use a test subject with known discrepancies, both actual defects and purposeful distractors. For example, you would have an actual crack, a piece of scotch tape, and a hair stuck in the paint. A human can use our thinking skills to determine which is which. A computer sees a change in density that shouldn't be there and flags it. The human can tell by shape, direction, location, and plain experience to tell if you need to spend a week tearing an aircraft apart to look at it. A computer can't. That's why we call it NON-Destructive Inspection. To prevent the needless tearing down of parts.) Even the automated ultrasonic or eddy current inspections that get used on things like roller coaster tracks still get verified by a human. And they are far more basic than reading a radiograph.

It also reminds me of some of the other "AI" troubleshooting computer systems that have gotten added to aircraft. Talk to some people that work on F-18 or F-35 systems. You end up spending more time troubleshooting their troubleshooting systems. I actually started writing a long bit about my experience with the "AI" they put on the H-60 but then realized I don't know how much of that should be posted in an open forum and I've had a few drinks so not a decision to make right now.

That was a whole lot of words to say this, AI isn't taking the job of a radiologist any time soon. Too many other factors go into reading an image.

You'll note that the title of the article that is referenced in that article is "Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Radiology: An Alternative View." Which leads me to believe that this is the view of one person and the widely-held and commonly accepted view is different.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You'll note that the title of the article that is referenced in that article is "Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Radiology: An Alternative View." Which leads me to believe that this is the view of one person and the widely-held and commonly accepted view is different.

"Vaccine's and Autism: An Alternative View."

"The Earth's Shape: An Alternative View."

Ix is on a bender right now of reading tech bro futuristic mumbo jumbo.

AI is not going to be replacing your radiologist at any point in the next 20 years. It’s very likely that we will need less radiologists, but they aren’t going out of work.

UBI is such a half-baked proposal for a hypothetical mass job loss anyways. What is the end goal? Just putting people on a monthly welfare program? What is the amount? How is it funded?

The most serious UBI-like proposal is from Kamala Harris and she outlines a real way of achieving it.

Andrew Yang is your average tech bro screaming “UBI!!!!” with no clear policy or fiscal outlines.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have noticed this also. The "media picking the nominee" trick didn't work so well last time.

Thats because Hillary was a bad nominee. Media got sucked into first female president, now all this diversity is becoming normal with cream rising to the top. I have no problem Harris getting treated like front runner until she isn't.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thats because Hillary was a bad nominee. Media got sucked into first female president, now all this diversity is becoming normal with cream rising to the top. I have no problem Harris getting treated like front runner until she isn't.

Harris is the front runner for now but Beto is probably getting in. Uncle Joe is probably getting in.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tell me more about this UBI. It’s like sweet music being whispered into my lazy, Libby ears.

I would recommend reading the book "War on Normal People" to learn more. Contrary to what @No Excuses thinks the UBI policy is well thought out and planned effectively. It basically rips apart any argument that he as well as anyone who just sees "free moniezzzz!" thinks.

"We cannot pay for UBI"

UBI will come from VAT which is already implemented successfully in every developed country but the USA

"UBI addresses an issue that is not going on"

When thousands of people in normal America are losing work and marriage rates are going down / domestic violence is going up, UBI helps offer a safety net so that the unemployed and underemployed can continue to live without resorting to violence or drugs or alcohol, as well as increasing mental health. His book paints a disturbing picture of the unemployed in "Normal" America getting on disability and abusing the system, which reduces the incentive to work. The current system is broken in so many ways and needs drastic repair.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I could listen to Macho Man Randy Savage talk literally all day. The only thing that stops me is I would pick up the way he talks and then I would probably lose my job.

I have used the term "Cream of the crop....yeeea" three times already today. None of the nerds around me know whats happening.

Sadly I did not watch much WWE until around 2011 so I missed out on most of Macho Man but rewatching his promos and his rants on Hulk Hogan and defending Miss Elizabeth on Youtube was always hilarious. "Oh yeahhhh."